welterweightUX

          

On the Brain Traffic blog yesterday, Kristina Halvorson threw a bunch of blog topics at her readers. Her goal is to set off a volcano (oooh, sorry, that may still be a sore subject for some of you) of Content Strategy-related posts. She wanted to get people thinking and talking. And acting. Of course acting!

One of the topics was “What’s my elevator speech when someone asks me what a content strategist is?”

So, this post is inspired by that. I won’t be talking about CS specifically, but more of what I do as a user experience person.

Not sure how tall of a building people mean when talking elevator pitches, but I’ll guess that the building has 5 stories. In that case, you should probably take the stairs. But whatever. You’re feeling lazy today. Here’s 1 bullet point for each story.

As a UXer, I:

• MUST learn everything I can about who user is. Once I do, I can begin to make informed decisions about how to nudge a design in a direction that will make them successful.

• Continually scheme to make websites better. By better, I mean easier to use. This demands various methodologies: heuristic evaluation, user research, content strategy, information architecture, wireframing, user testing. And more!

• Wrestle the boogiemen of bad design decisions who taunt and haunt users.

• Collude with the devil, am a perpetually skeptical, vocally so—no approach is “good enough”, just as nothing is ever “perfect”. I ask, “Why don’t we try this instead?” and “Wouldn’t it be better if…”

• Am not an expert. Humble, strategic experimentation is the only way to get closer to workable solutions. User experience is not about having all the answers. It’s about offering alternatives. It’s about listening. Collaborating. And it’s about being unafraid of revising approaches again and again and again, anon.

(Elevator photo by Soymaligno - thanks!)

Anti-redesign
There’s been a lot written lately about shirking comprehensive site redesigns in favor of slower, incremental roll outs of enhancements.

The reasons for this are simple: You can be nimbly reactionary. You can test out a concept outside the usability lab (which has has its inherent awkwardness) to see how it performs. If it does well, you can sit on it. Or better, refine it further to make it even better. If it fails, you can scrap it, start from scratch, then roll out something altogether new.

And then continue the circle.

I’m an advocate of this. It makes sense. Keeps you on your toes and honest about the fact that good enough can always be improved.

A different idea altogether…
A few weeks ago, I was the website of a local optician, Optix on Downer. I’m not sure how long their site has been live, but if you look at it, you’ll notice the following image in the left gutter near the page footer:

When you click it, you get the old site. Strange, eh? But interesting.

Part of me likes this idea. It says: Visitor, we know we may have thrown you a wrench by changing stuff around on you, but we like you, so we’ve provided you with an out to get back to the site you’re used to.

Part of me hates this idea. It says: Visitor, you’re a stodgy, unchanging beast. We want to make you happy with our new site, but you’re awfully hard to please. Also, we know there’s something wrong with this new site, so here’s an out. Feel free to never take the time to explore this new thing we spent so much time and money developing. We’re not going to make enhancements anyway.

Pros and cons of offering an out
Optix almost certainly doesn’t have a dedicated web department who can review analytics, do heuristic reviews, or use the bevy of other techniques out there to determine what’s failing and respond to it.

They’ve come up with an interesting approach to the full redesign, by allowing visitors to access the older, possibly more familiar site. But by doing this, they’re making new users ask too many questions: What am I missing on this new site that was on the old one? Do I have to troll that one, too, in order to find the info I’m looking for?

The new site has crisp, concise content, a sensible content architecture, and is pretty dapper looking to boot. Optix should be happy with how they’ve evolved and not focus on continually paying homage to the flashy dinosaur wreckage of their past.

The truth is, sometimes a full, significant redesign makes sense. I feel kind of icky saying that, but I guess occasionally you need to come face-to-face with the alteratives before you can face the facts.

If you want someone to connect with your brand/company post-haste, don’t fool around with them. Use your homepage to shout at them: Hey! This is who we are and this is what we do!

Does this sound like a coarse approach? It doesn’t have to be. And if done right, it won’t be.

There are tons of sites out there who’ve keyed into this idea. They use prime real estate on their homepages to introduce themselves and their services to site visitors in succinct, meaningful ways.

Here’s a trio of examples that do a good job of taking the guesswork out of a visitor’s experience. Movement throughout the sites is supported in several ways:
▪    Navigation
▪    Visual cues
▪    Calls to action

When it comes down to it though, the focal point is, in plain-spoken English, saying who and what the firms are. And guess what? Visitors are immediately engaged. With blazing speed, they can decide if the companies offer what they need…or not. Decisions are made in seconds. Then they can continue on their way, either deeper into or away from the sites.

Brain Traffic

Pixel Thread

Roll

Of course, this exact scaled-back approach may not work for all industries or business models, but there are ways this directness can be modified to sing any site’s purpose. Clarity is something all of us owe to everyone who visits our sites.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about whether good user experiences are a privilege or a right when it comes to free sites, apps, and software.

Remember the riptide of criticism that Facebook, a totally free services, got for the “Live Feed” and “News Feed” roll out a few months? Was the vitriol really warranted? There are people who use the site for fluffy, superficial reasons (not to minimize the importance interpersonal connection), so should they be furious when FB rolls out features that are as desirable as a glass of spoiled milk?

I’m going to say…maybe. Maybe they should be mad, but they shouldn’t expect to not be mad.

This blog is new. When I started it, I decided to try out Tumblr, a service I’d never used. Mainly I did this because code’s a foreign tongue to me, and Tumblr seemed really plug and play, which means it’s easier for a dolt like me to customize than  other options, like Wordpress.

Immediately after signing up, I began—slightly—customizing the blog’s overall look and feel. That’s where the frustration started. On the customization screen, there are five tabs you can click though to make different changes to your blog.

Here’s what it looks like:

In the example above, I click on the Appearance tab. Cool. Now, after looking at what’s under that tab, I expect to be able to click on the main part of the screen and have the drop-down disappear. Not so. What next? Maybe there’s a close option somewhere? Nope.

The only way to close one of the options is to click back on the tab name, Appearance. After doing that, the drop-down goes away. Finally.

Who came up with this interaction and why? It’s kludgy, poorly thought out, and not in line with any standards I’ve seen on other sites.

For all of its apparent simplicity (check out how awesomely straightforward their homepage is), Tumblr has quite a few features that are insanely frustrating and weird.

Of course I have options:

• Roar loudly, both publicly and privately, about how crappy these features are (which I guess I’m kind of doing with this post)
• Abandon the site for another service
• Tell myself, “Dude, it’s free. Deal with it.”

Of course, technology is largely self-correcting. If enough wacky things happen on a site, people will abandon it for something of a similar ilk that works better. But when something changes on the new flavor of the month, the cries will rise again. The public will go hoarse with complaints; eye muscle will strain from so much rolling.

People demand good user experiences, but they shouldn’t expect them from sites they use gratis. Free stuff is good, yeah, but think of like someone’s treating you to a meal: You can’t expect truffles—you need to be happy with a burrito.

Burritos can be delicious, too. And filling.